Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[bripat9643]

Can anyone name the nations on this planet that do not have any socialist programs?

What would that prove? Can you name the dogs that don't have fleas?

 

[regent]

Can anyone name the nations on this planet that do not have any socialist programs?

What would that prove? Can you name the dogs that don't have fleas?

This is not about dogs and fleas but economic systems. Economics is probably the softest of the soft sciences. It cannot conduct experiments as other sciences as to the best flea powder, so it must look to the different economies of nations to see what works best. It seems that the mixture of socialism and capitalism is the choice of most nations today.
So if a nation has a pure economy of capitalism it would be evidence of how that works. Know any?
It would also be interesting and beneficial to see how those nations fare with pure socialism. Know any?
You undoubtedly know what economic system the United States has?

 

[bripat9643]

Can anyone name the nations on this planet that do not have any socialist programs?

What would that prove? Can you name the dogs that don't have fleas?

This is not about dogs and fleas but economic systems. Economics is probably the softest of the soft sciences. It cannot conduct experiments as other sciences as to the best flea powder, so it must look to the different economies of nations to see what works best. It seems that the mixture of socialism and capitalism is the choice of most nations today.
So if a nation has a pure economy of capitalism it would be evidence of how that works. Know any?
It would also be interesting and beneficial to see how those nations fare with pure socialism. Know any?
You undoubtedly know what economic system the United States has?

I'm sorry you don't comprehend analogies. It must be a congenital defect common to liberals. It was intended to show that just because you always see 'A' with 'B,' that doesn't prove that 'B' benefits from 'A.' A flea is a parasite the preys on dog flesh, among other mammals. It can't live without animal flesh to feed on. That's why you always see them infesting some animal. Government (socialism) is also a parasite that preys on market economies. The later doesn't benefit from the former.

Every time pure socialism has been tried, the result has been mass starvation. The more determined the regime is to implement it's utopian scheme, the more people die. Of course, morons like you claim that it wasn't a good test because it wasn't "pure" or "true" socialism.

 

[regent]

Can anyone name the nations on this planet that do not have any socialist programs?

What would that prove? Can you name the dogs that don't have fleas?

This is not about dogs and fleas but economic systems. Economics is probably the softest of the soft sciences. It cannot conduct experiments as other sciences as to the best flea powder, so it must look to the different economies of nations to see what works best. It seems that the mixture of socialism and capitalism is the choice of most nations today.
So if a nation has a pure economy of capitalism it would be evidence of how that works. Know any?
It would also be interesting and beneficial to see how those nations fare with pure socialism. Know any?
You undoubtedly know what economic system the United States has?

I'm sorry you don't comprehend analogies. It must be a congenital defect common to liberals. It was intended to show that just because you always see 'A' with 'B,' that doesn't prove that 'B' benefits from 'A.' A flea is a parasite the preys on dog flesh, among other mammals. It can't live without animal flesh to feed on. That's why you always see them infesting some animal. Government (socialism) is also a parasite that preys on market economies. The later doesn't benefit from the former.

Every time pure socialism has been tried, the result has been mass starvation. The more determined the regime is to implement it's utopian scheme, the more people die. Of course, morons like you claim that it wasn't a good test because it wasn't "pure" or "true" socialism.

Is Social Security socialism?

 

[bripat9643]

Can anyone name the nations on this planet that do not have any socialist programs?

What would that prove? Can you name the dogs that don't have fleas?

This is not about dogs and fleas but economic systems. Economics is probably the softest of the soft sciences. It cannot conduct experiments as other sciences as to the best flea powder, so it must look to the different economies of nations to see what works best. It seems that the mixture of socialism and capitalism is the choice of most nations today.
So if a nation has a pure economy of capitalism it would be evidence of how that works. Know any?
It would also be interesting and beneficial to see how those nations fare with pure socialism. Know any?
You undoubtedly know what economic system the United States has?

I'm sorry you don't comprehend analogies. It must be a congenital defect common to liberals. It was intended to show that just because you always see 'A' with 'B,' that doesn't prove that 'B' benefits from 'A.' A flea is a parasite the preys on dog flesh, among other mammals. It can't live without animal flesh to feed on. That's why you always see them infesting some animal. Government (socialism) is also a parasite that preys on market economies. The later doesn't benefit from the former.

Every time pure socialism has been tried, the result has been mass starvation. The more determined the regime is to implement it's utopian scheme, the more people die. Of course, morons like you claim that it wasn't a good test because it wasn't "pure" or "true" socialism.

Is Social Security socialism?

Yes. What's your point?

 

[daws101]

not running and your recall is again not my problem.

You're running away with your tail between your legs.

more wishful thinking, that's if you thought..

I simply note your behavior.

If you don't want to defend your ideas, then what are you doing here?

false! to simply note my behavior ,you'd have to be objective a quality you sorely lack..
my Ideas need no defending, your reaction to them is very telling

ROFL! Again you admit you have no intention of defending your imbecile ideas!

false! my ideas need no defending so there is nothing to admit....

 

[daws101]

...yet all of them vote the GOP ticket,

dear, most people who vote don't know political philosophy but if they vote for the conservative wisdom of Aristotle Cicero Locke Jefferson and Friedman, even by mistake, lets all thank God and pray its a mistake they keep making.

Do you understand?

Since I'm unfamiliar with that logic, could you explain a bit more?

Republicans stand for freedom and liberals stand for deadly Marxism even after it killed 200 million so lets pray that people vote for Republicans

bullshit ..
Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2] instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.[3][4]

Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1] Principles that can be described as "liberal socialist" have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe.[7] Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes and R. H. Tawney.[6] Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.[6]
what 200 million people are you yammering about?

That isn't socialism. That's fascism.

It's also stupid and impossible. Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. Equality is impossible under any circumstances, but we can ignore that point for now.

bullshit it depends on what you mean by equality. There is equality of opportunity and equality before the law and equality of outcome. Both equality of opportunity and equality before the law does not violate freedom. In fact freedom depends on them.

way to misinterpret Tomas Mann....that's if you actually knew how that is.
my guess is that you heard it on some fringe right talk show...

 

[bripat9643]

You're running away with your tail between your legs.

more wishful thinking, that's if you thought..

I simply note your behavior.

If you don't want to defend your ideas, then what are you doing here?

false! to simply note my behavior ,you'd have to be objective a quality you sorely lack..
my Ideas need no defending, your reaction to them is very telling

ROFL! Again you admit you have no intention of defending your imbecile ideas!

false! my ideas need no defending so there is nothing to admit....

Even Einstein had to defend his ideas, so your position is absurd.

You're simply a coward who knows he spewed a bunch of idiocies and is now running away.

 

[daws101]

Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2]

100% stupid, naive, and liberal! Obama is a liberal yet he had 3 communist parents, voted to left of Bernie Sanders, and supports Obamacommiecare and single payer!! You are a Marxist dupe but lack the IQ to know it.


Norman Thomas quotes:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

no one has three parents communist or other wise ...the more times you repeat that the more psychotic you appear..
your yammering about I.q. is just that,
yammering
if you had AN IQ higher then 3 you'd stop repeating the same horse shit.

 

[bripat9643]

dear, most people who vote don't know political philosophy but if they vote for the conservative wisdom of Aristotle Cicero Locke Jefferson and Friedman, even by mistake, lets all thank God and pray its a mistake they keep making.

Do you understand?

Since I'm unfamiliar with that logic, could you explain a bit more?

Republicans stand for freedom and liberals stand for deadly Marxism even after it killed 200 million so lets pray that people vote for Republicans

bullshit ..
Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2] instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.[3][4]

Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1] Principles that can be described as "liberal socialist" have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe.[7] Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes and R. H. Tawney.[6] Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.[6]
what 200 million people are you yammering about?

That isn't socialism. That's fascism.

It's also stupid and impossible. Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. Equality is impossible under any circumstances, but we can ignore that point for now.

bullshit it depends on what you mean by equality. There is equality of opportunity and equality before the law and equality of outcome. Both equality of opportunity and equality before the law does not violate freedom. In fact freedom depends on them.

way to misinterpret Tomas Mann....that's if you actually knew how that is.
my guess is that you heard it on some fringe right talk show...

Wrong. The only thing that doesn't violate freedom is equality before the law, which is one of the principles this nation was founded on. Equality of opportunity is a fantasy, and it certainly can't be accomplished without violating freedom. The children of the rich will always have better opportunities than the children of the poor. How do you make their opportunities equal without taking away the rich man's fortune, his business connections and his smarts?

 

[jillian]

Addicting Info Explaining Socialism To A Republican


There you go republicans...Learn something

How would anyone learn anything from a pack of lies?

which is why no one learns anything from you.

 

[daws101]

Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2]

100% stupid, naive, and liberal! Obama is a liberal yet he had 3 communist parents, voted to left of Bernie Sanders, and supports Obamacommiecare and single payer!! You are a Marxist dupe but lack the IQ to know it.


Norman Thomas quotes:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

funny coming from this
Quote by:
Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2]

100% stupid, naive, and liberal! Obama is a liberal yet he had 3 communist parents, voted to left of Bernie Sanders, and supports Obamacommiecare and single payer!! You are a Marxist dupe but lack the IQ to know it.


Norman Thomas quotes:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

no one has three parents communist or other wise ...the more times you repeat that the more psychotic you appear..
your yammering about I.q. is just that,
yammering
if you had AN IQ higher then 3 you'd stop repeating the same horse shit.

Obama had two communist biological parents and one communist step-parent, so you are wrong, as usual.

 

[bripat9643]

Addicting Info Explaining Socialism To A Republican


There you go republicans...Learn something

How would anyone learn anything from a pack of lies?

which is why no one learns anything from you.

That's funny coming from the forum dingbat.

 

[daws101]

what 200 million people are you yammering about?

The 200 million that the great socialists killed under Hitler Stalin and Mao.

exaggeration...

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2][dubious – discuss] There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

and you conveniently left out Hitler who was a staunch conservative

. The Nazis were/are known as national socialists. National socialists are far right wing extremists Many say the far right in the US are National Socialists. Certainly one of the right wing talk show hosts is. he held a Nazi rally in summer of 2006.
less propaganda more facts...

 

[daws101]

more wishful thinking, that's if you thought..

I simply note your behavior.

If you don't want to defend your ideas, then what are you doing here?

false! to simply note my behavior ,you'd have to be objective a quality you sorely lack..
my Ideas need no defending, your reaction to them is very telling

ROFL! Again you admit you have no intention of defending your imbecile ideas!

false! my ideas need no defending so there is nothing to admit....

Even Einstein had to defend his ideas, so your position is absurd.

You're simply a coward who knows he spewed a bunch of idiocies and is now running away.

only against ignorant idiots like yourself..
you just wish I was a coward...
true cowardice is the willful ignorance you spew...

 

[daws101]

Since I'm unfamiliar with that logic, could you explain a bit more?

Republicans stand for freedom and liberals stand for deadly Marxism even after it killed 200 million so lets pray that people vote for Republicans

bullshit ..
Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2] instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.[3][4]

Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1] Principles that can be described as "liberal socialist" have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe.[7] Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes and R. H. Tawney.[6] Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.[6]
what 200 million people are you yammering about?

That isn't socialism. That's fascism.

It's also stupid and impossible. Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. Equality is impossible under any circumstances, but we can ignore that point for now.

bullshit it depends on what you mean by equality. There is equality of opportunity and equality before the law and equality of outcome. Both equality of opportunity and equality before the law does not violate freedom. In fact freedom depends on them.

way to misinterpret Tomas Mann....that's if you actually knew how that is.
my guess is that you heard it on some fringe right talk show...

Wrong. The only thing that doesn't violate freedom is equality before the law, which is one of the principles this nation was founded on. Equality of opportunity is a fantasy, and it certainly can't be accomplished without violating freedom. The children of the rich will always have better opportunities than the children of the poor. How do you make their opportunities equal without taking away the rich man's fortune, his business connections and his smarts?

yep classic rush Limbaugh...

 

[bripat9643]

what 200 million people are you yammering about?

The 200 million that the great socialists killed under Hitler Stalin and Mao.

exaggeration...

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2][dubious – discuss] There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

and you conveniently left out Hitler who was a staunch conservative

. The Nazis were/are known as national socialists. National socialists are far right wing extremists Many say the far right in the US are National Socialists. Certainly one of the right wing talk show hosts is. he held a Nazi rally in summer of 2006.
less propaganda more facts...

So when Stalin sent millions of people to the Gulag where they died of exposure, overwork and starvation, that doesn't count as mass killing?

 

[bripat9643]

Republicans stand for freedom and liberals stand for deadly Marxism even after it killed 200 million so lets pray that people vote for Republicans

bullshit ..
Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that includes liberal principles within it.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism with a socialist economy;[2] instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.[3][4]

Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a mixed market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1] Principles that can be described as "liberal socialist" have been based upon or developed by the following philosophers: John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe.[7] Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes and R. H. Tawney.[6] Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.[6]
what 200 million people are you yammering about?

That isn't socialism. That's fascism.

It's also stupid and impossible. Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. Equality is impossible under any circumstances, but we can ignore that point for now.

bullshit it depends on what you mean by equality. There is equality of opportunity and equality before the law and equality of outcome. Both equality of opportunity and equality before the law does not violate freedom. In fact freedom depends on them.

way to misinterpret Tomas Mann....that's if you actually knew how that is.
my guess is that you heard it on some fringe right talk show...

Wrong. The only thing that doesn't violate freedom is equality before the law, which is one of the principles this nation was founded on. Equality of opportunity is a fantasy, and it certainly can't be accomplished without violating freedom. The children of the rich will always have better opportunities than the children of the poor. How do you make their opportunities equal without taking away the rich man's fortune, his business connections and his smarts?

yep classic rush Limbaugh...

Prove it wrong, coward.

 

[bripat9643]

I simply note your behavior.

If you don't want to defend your ideas, then what are you doing here?

false! to simply note my behavior ,you'd have to be objective a quality you sorely lack..
my Ideas need no defending, your reaction to them is very telling

ROFL! Again you admit you have no intention of defending your imbecile ideas!

false! my ideas need no defending so there is nothing to admit....

Even Einstein had to defend his ideas, so your position is absurd.

You're simply a coward who knows he spewed a bunch of idiocies and is now running away.

only against ignorant idiots like yourself..
you just wish I was a coward...
true cowardice is the willful ignorance you spew...

Every time you are asked to prove that what I post is ignorance you run away.

So who's the coward?